New Mass Falsifies the Definition of “Mystery of Faith”

 

Compiled by Jim Condit Jr.

 

In one of the most blatant possible falsifications imaginable, Paul VI insisted on falsifying the definition of the ancient term “Mystery of Faith” in the consecration of the wine in his self-proclaimed "New Mass", issued in 1969.

 

Unlike the “all men” or, later, the “all” mistranslation of “pro multis”, i.e, “for many”, in the consecration of the wine in the New Mass, which mistranslation was done only in the vernacular version (i.e., English, Spanish, etc.) of the New Mass, the “mystery of Faith” falsification was done in the Latin version of the New Mass as well.

 

The term “Mystery of Faith” in the Consecration of the Wine had already been Defined by Holy Mother Church

 

St. Thomas Aquinas, Pope Innocent III, among others, tell us that the term “Mystery of Faith” for the Latin Rite was given by Christ Himself to the Apostles, and from the Apostles to their successors.

 

Recently, and quite laughably, some Vatican II apologists have put forth theories without evidence to try and refute St. Thomas and Pope Innocent III. These latter day theological-buffoons have stated, for instance, that “Mystery of Faith” was inserted into the Canon by a pious transcriber in the 7th century, and then somehow spread to every diocese in the world (despite the existence of elaborate controls to prevent the mistakes or innovations of transcribers from being adopted). Patrick Omlor shows the absurdity of this in his important paper, “No ‘Mystery of Faith’: No Mass.” (By the way, this compilation is very heavily indebted to the research of Mr. Patrick Omlor, as we shall again acknowledge at the end of this essay.)

 

However, even if one were to grant the latter day theories that “Mystery of Faith” entered into the consecration of the wine centuries after the time of Christ, this would in no way diminish the falsity of what Paul VI has done when he falsified the definition of "Mystery of Faith" in his New Mass in 1969. For Vatican Council I made the following definition regarding the expression of the words of doctrinal formulas in Session III, Chapter 4, “On Faith and Reason”:

 

“Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy Mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.” (End quote from Vatican Council I, 1870)

 

Well, as we are about to see, the term “Mystery of Faith” in the consecration of the wine is a sacred dogma “which has once been declared by Holy Mother Church.” We will further see that Paul VI in his “New Mass” abandoned “this sense” -- and, in fact, contradicted it. In other words, Paul VI did exactly what the Church had infallibly defined must not be done. And this no true pope could ever do.

 

(If anyone needs to see the proof that the term “Mystery of Faith” is part of the essential form of the consecration of the Mass in the Latin rite, please see our companion paper, “The New Mass is Invalid Because of Substantial Change in Christ’s Words” in the right hand column at realnews247.com as well as Patrick Omlor's paper, "No 'Mystery of Faith': No Mass.")

 

The Meaning of the term “Mystery of Faith” in the Consecration of the Wine

 

Referring to the term “Mystery of Faith” in the consecration of the wine, the Catechism of the Council of Trent, teaches the following:

"In this place, however," teaches the Roman Catechism, "these words bear an import different from that which they have when applied to baptism; for here 'the mystery of faith' consists in seeing by faith the blood of Christ, veiled under the species of wine ..." (Part II, Chap. IV, Q. 23).

[“The Roman Catechism” is another name for the “Catechism of the Council of Trent”, which was first discussed at an earlier session of the Council of Trent circa 1546; the completion of this catechism was ordered by Pope Pius IV circa 1563 to explain the mind of the Church Fathers regarding the decrees of the Council of Trent; shortly before his death in 1565, Pope Pius IV put the great St. Charles Borromeo in charge of completing this catechism; this catechism was finally approved and promulgated in 1566 by Pope St. Pius V, after he had ordered a commission of doctrinal experts to go over the catechism one last time to ensure doctrinal accuracy.]

As gratefully acknowledged earlier, this short paper is relying heavily on the research of the excellent Mr. Patrick Omlor in his paper, “No ‘Mystery of Faith’: No Mass” (a link to this paper is given at the end of this paper), which is heartily recommended as a scholarly treatment of this entire subject. Mr. Omlor divided his paper into numbered paragraphs for easy reference, and, as he himself states, so that would be opponents could easily reference the paragraphs they are trying to refute.

Now we reproduce paragraphs 48 through 51 of the above mentioned paper by Mr. Omlor:

48. Pope Innocent III teaches likewise that the theological significance of these words in the sacramental form is their expression of the doctrine of the Real Presence of the true Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar:

"Yet 'mysterium fidei' is mentioned, since something is believed there other than what is perceived; and something is perceived other than what is believed. For the species of the bread and wine is perceived there, but what is believed is the truth of the Body and Blood of Christ and the power of unity and love." (From the doctrinal letter Cum Marthae Circa cited earlier, Denz. # 414).

49. Catholics believe that hidden under the consecrated species of Bread and Wine is the Real Presence of the Sacred Humanity and Divinity of Our Lord. Present sacramentally is the same true body of Jesus that was conceived in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the same body that came forth in the stable at Bethlehem, the same Jesus Christ Who as the Divine Infant was held in the loving arms of St. Joseph. The same Divine Infant Who was borne on the shoulders of St. Christopher and Who appeared to St. Anthony and lay upon his breast. Yes, what we receive in Holy Communion is the true Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of the same Jesus Christ Who suffered His dolorous Passion and Death on Calvary for us, Who rose from the dead on the first Easter and Who ascended into heaven forty days later. It is the same Jesus Christ Whom we will meet at the terrifying moment of our particular judgment, and Who at the end of time will come again to judge the living and the dead.

50. This is what is meant precisely and exclusively by the phrase "the mystery of faith" in the wine consecration of the Mass: our belief in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ -- right now --in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. Among those things that are NOT meant here are the truths of our faith that Christ has died, that He is risen, and that He will come again.

51. Although this may be getting ahead of what will be discussed later, it is expedient to mention at this point that Paul VI not only removed the words "the mystery of faith" from the sacramental form itself, but inappropriately brought them in later. He wrote: "The words Mysterium Fidei, taken from the context of the words of Christ the Lord, and said by the priest, serve as an introduction to the acclamation of the faithful" (Apostolic Constitution promulgating the NOM). The "acclamation of the faithful" is "Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again."

(End of quote from Mr. Patrick Omlor)

 

Paul VI Falsifies the meaning of the doctrinal term, “Mystery of Faith” in the consecration of the wine in his New Mass

Let us stop here to take a breath and face squarely what Paul VI (occupying the Chair of Peter from 1963 to 1978) did in his New Mass in 1969.

Let us reemphasize that in the last section we saw that the term “Mystery of Faith” in the consecration of the wine means the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ under the species of bread and wine. There are other mysteries in the Roman Catholic Faith. The Catechism of the Council of Trent specifically states that another mystery of the Faith has to do with the taking away of original sin in the sacrament of Baptism. But in the consecration of the wine, the “Mystery of Faith” clearly and always referred to is the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

We have also seen that the Church ruled infallibly (and logically) at the First Vatican Council in 1870 that once a formula for the meaning of a dogma has been assigned and promulgated by Holy Mother Church that it is not to be weakened under any pretext whatsoever.

Furthermore, Paul VI actions regarding the term “Mystery of Faith” in the consecration of wine is further condemned by his own admission that he understood these things in the 1965 purported encyclical issued under his name, “Mysterium Fidei”, which in English means none other than, “Mystery of Faith.” (!!!)

For in that document Paul VI defined the Mystery of Faith in the consecration of the wine as the real presence of Christ – and – also quoted Vatican Council I that the words of a formulation of dogma, such as the form of the consecration of the wine, were never to be weakened under any pretext whatsoever. (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

When we consider the contradiction of Paul VI in "Mysterium Fidei", his purported encyclical, vs. Paul VI in his promulgation of the false definition of "Mystery of Faith" in his "New Mass",  it calls to mind the observation of Pope St. Pius X in his encyclical against the Modernists: “But when they justify even contradictions, what is it that they will refuse to justify?”

But, in fact, Paul VI went far beyond merely weakening the meaning of the words “Mystery of Faith” in his New Mass (in Latin and in English), for he, in fact, completely falsified the meaning of these most sacred words.

We have already seen that Paul VI blatantly stated in his promulgation of the New Mass that he was taking the term “Mystery of Faith” out of the consecration, and placing it afterwards as an introduction for an acclamation by the Faithful.

And what is that definition? One that gives a false definition of the words “Mystery of Faith” in the consecration of the wine. Here is what we find in the printed version of the New Mass in every missalette in the world:

In English: "Let us proclaim the Mystery of Faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again."

 

This proclamation of the faithful does not express the doctrine of transubstantiation. It does express other doctrines of the faith, but not the one already defined by the Church as the meaning of "Mystery of Faith" in the consecration of the Mass (namely, the Real Presence, or transubstantiation).

 

This "New Mass" definition of "Mystery of Faith" is therefore the exact type of weakening of a formulation of doctrine (already determined by the Church) which was condemned in Vatican I in 1870. (Again, it is, in fact, a denial of the already defined doctrine by way of substituting another doctrine its place.)

 

It is important to note that the above proclamation (i.e., Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again) is an option at every New Mass. So, even if the other three proclamations expressed the doctrine of transubstantiation (which they do not), then the inclusion of this false definition would make the "New Mass of Paul VI" sacrilegious (meaning not able to be attended without violating the First Commandment against false worship) and invalid as well (according to the still standing, never revoked, decree of Pope St. Pius V, "De Defectibus", which was also promulgated and approved by every Pope from 1570 until 1958 in every publication of the Latin Rite Mass in the world).

 

To repeat, while there are three other options given for the proclamation of the term "Mystery of Faith" in the New Mass of Paul VI, none of them express the doctrine of transubstantiation, and all of them are perfectly acceptable to those who deny the doctrine of transubstantiation. Here is another:

In Latin: “Mysterium Fidei. Mortem tuam annuntiamus, Domine, et tuam resurrectionem confitemur, donec venias.”

[In English: “Mystery of Faith. We announce Your death, Lord, and we confess your resurrection, until you will come again.”]

 

Again, we have the proclamation of true doctrines, but not the doctrine expressed by the term "Mystery of Faith" in the consecration of the Mass. In fact, Paul VI proclaims doctrines that Protestants who deny the Real Presence can also assent to. This is why the New Mass was used at the Protestant community of Taize, France, where the Tridentine Mass was never used, and was unacceptable.

 

As anyone can see, Paul substituted false meanings for the term “Mystery of Faith” in the consecration of the wine in the New Mass, both in the Latin and in the English version.

 

An Analogy for What Paul VI did to the term "Mystery of Faith" in the New Mass

 

Let us consider what one might do if he wanted to implicitly deny the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Instead of repeating accurately the defined dogma (1854, promulgated by Pope Pius IX) as, "Mary was conceived without Original Sin", one would issue a ceremony for all Catholics to participate in, which would state something like the following:

 

"Let us proclaim the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception: Mary was the Mother of Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity."

 

Now the following logical conclusions would be necessary:

 

a) The proclamation states a true doctrine, but not the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception;

 

b) by failing to express the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception as the Church had already infallibly defined it, the new formulation is a denial of the Church's doctrine;

 

c) Such a formulation, unlike the real doctrine, would be perfectly acceptable to Protestants who denied the Immaculate Conception.

 

d) Such a formulation would come under the sanction of the First Vatican Council, that once a formulation of doctrine was determined by Holy Mother Church, that the same signification must forever remain, and not weakened for any reason whatsoever. (Again, in this example, and in the reality of what Paul VI did in his "New Mass" to the term "Mystery of Faith", we are dealing with an outright falsification of what the Church had already defined and formulated.)

 

A True Pope Cannot Falsify a Meaning in the Form of the Consecration of the Mass

 

What Paul VI did is easy to understand. He falsified the term “Mystery of Faith” in the consecration of the Mass.

 

According to the infallible “universal and ordinary magisterium” of the Church, as referred to by Vatican Council I and Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical on the Unity of the Church (Satis Cognitum), a true Pope cannot lead the faithful into sin in a liturgy or devotion he has promulgated.

 

Because of the falsification of the term Mystery of Faith, -- used by the Church, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, for now 2000 years, and explicitly defined by the Church as far back as 1202 by Innocent III, and by the Catechism of the Council of Trent in 1566, with the unanimous consent of all Popes before and after that time – Paul VI cannot be a true Pope, and neither can those purporting to be Popes after him, who have upheld this outrageous falsification of the key words in the very heart of the Mass.

 

a) Paul VI leads the faithful into objective sin by treating a holy thing with disrespect.

The New Mass in English is a sacrilege because it treats a holy thing, namely the central concept of the consecration of the Mass, with disrespect.

 

The definition of a sacrilege from Baltimore Catechism #2, 1941:

 

213. When does a person sin by sacrilege?  

 

A person sins by sacrilege when he mistreats sacred persons, places, or things. 

They have set thy sanctuary ablaze, they have profaned the dwelling of thy name on the earth. (Psalm 73:7)   (End of passage from the Baltimore Catechism)

 

Needless to say, the falsification of the definition of the term “Mystery of Faith”  in the consecration formula of the New Mass , (which can be verified by walking into any Catholic Church building in the USA and picking up a Missalette), resulting in an invalid sacrament according to the still standing decrees of the Church, is a grave sacrilege, objectively speaking.

 

 

b) Paul VI made his New Mass into a perfect example of False Worship, a sin against the First Commandment.

 

The New Mass in English is a sin against the First Commandment, i.e., is false worship, because it mixes error in with the worship of the True God.

 

Any pre-1958 theologian with an imprimatur on his work could be picked out to understand the question of False worship, which is either the worship of a false God (Moslems), or mixing in error in the worship of the true God.

 

One citation: Father Heribert Jone, an eminent Catholic moral theologian, in his famous “Handbook of Moral Theology”, discussed the sin of "False Worship," which is one of the offenses against the First Commandment. He said that, “God is worshipped in a false manner if one mingles religious errors and deception with the worship of the true God.” (Newman Press: Westminster MD, 1961, p. 97).

 

Clearly this is what the New Mass in English does: mingles religious errors and deception with the worship of the true God – by falsifying the definition of the already defined term “Mystery of Faith” in the very consecration of the Mass.

 

c) According to the still standing, never modified document “De Defectibus” by Pope St. Pius V, such a falsification also renders the New Mass invalid, which no true Pope could ever do. (See our companion article, “New Mass in English is Invalid Because of Substantial Change in Christ’s Words”, for complete documentation on this point.) From points (a), (b), and (c) immediately above, it is clear that Paul VI could not be a true Pope, since he introduced blatant falsehood into the very heart of the Mass, i.e., in the consecration itself.

 

 

Paul VI Made a Substantial Change in the Form of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, Something No True Pope Could Do

 

But one, especially one engulfed in the false religion and counterfeit church, or anti-church, of Vatican II – might well ask this question: But can’t a Pope make any changes he wants?

 

But the answer is, “No, a Pope cannot just make any changes he wants.” A true Pope is bound by the words of Christ, in the infallible rulings of the Church, both in her extraordinary prouncements, or ex cathedra pronouncements, on faith and morals (i.e., the definition of the Immaculate Conception by Pope Pius IX in 1854), or in her “universal and ordinary magisterium”, such as in her liturgies and rites.

 

Here I again produce a few paragraphs directly from Mr. Patrick Omlor’s paper, “No ‘Mystery of Faith’: No Mass”:

 

85. Here are four pronouncements of the Magisterium of the Church that prove this claim:

 

[1] "[T]he Roman Pontiff regarding the administration of the sacraments of the Church, can tolerate and even permit different rites of the Church of Christ, ... always without violating those things which pertain to the integrity and necessary parts [emphasis added] of the sacraments" (from the letter Super quibusdam of Pope Clement VI, Sept. 29, 1351).

 

[2] "It [the Council] declares furthermore that this power has always been in the Church, that in the administration of the sacraments, without violating their substance [emphasis added], she may determine or change whatever she may judge to be more expedient for those who receive them or for the veneration of the sacraments, according to the variety of circumstances, times and places" (Council of Trent, Session XXI, Ch. 2).

 

[3] "[I]t is well known that to the Church there belongs no right whatsoever [emphasis added] to innovate anything touching on the substance of the sacraments (Pope St. Pius X, in the letter Ex quo, nono, Dec. 26, 1910).

 

[4] [A]s the Council of Trent teaches, the seven sacraments of the New Law have all been instituted by Jesus Christ, and the Church has no power [emphasis added] over the 'substance of the sacraments,' that is, over those things which, with the sources of Divine Revelation as witnesses, Christ the Lord Himself decreed to be preserved in a sacramental sign" (Pius XII, Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis, Nov. 30, 1947).

 

86. "The Church has no power," said Pius XII; "No right whatsoever," said St. Pius X. No bishop, nor all the bishops together unanimously, no council, no pope, no one at all has the right or the power to tamper with the substance of a sacrament, its essential matter or form, least of all Christ's own words in the form of the Holy Eucharist.

 

[End of quote from Mr. Patrick Omlor]

 

How do we know that Paul VI made a substantial change in the form of the Eucharist with his change to the definition of the term “Mystery of Faith” in the consecration of the wine? Because the entire tradition and teaching of the Church, in her universal and ordinary magisterium, tells us so, as demonstrated in an earlier section of this paper citing the pronouncements of Pope Innocent III, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Pope St. Pius V through the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

 

The Church’s Infallible “Universal and Ordinary Magisterium” Encompasses any Promulgation of the Roman Rite, or any other Rite of the Church

 

More paragraphs from Mr. Patrick Omlor’s paper, “No ‘Mystery of Faith’: No Mass”:

89. The Jan.-Feb. 1994 issue of the Australian journal Catholic carried a letter from Michael Davies. "What is known as the Latin Typical edition [of the Novus Ordo Missae]," wrote Mr. Davies, "is protected by the Church's indefectibility and cannot be invalid and cannot contain anything heretical or harmful to the faith. The indefectibility of the Church protects only what is mandated or authorised for the universal Church (legislation for the Roman Rite alone is considered as coming into this category)."

90. Mr. Davies reasons that the doctrine of the indefectibility of the Church is totally incompatible with the promulgation by a Sovereign Pontiff of a Mass that is per se invalid. This reasoning is absolutely sound. For if the true Church of Jesus Christ were to foist upon the faithful of the Roman Rite a Mass that is invalid, She would thus deprive them of the primary source of grace for their sanctification. In such a case we would be bound to admit that the Church had indeed failed in its mission on earth; it would be defectible, which is impossible.

91. Let us consider from a different viewpoint Mr. Davies' argument based on the indefectibility of the Church. Let us deny his premise that Paul VI was truly Christ's Vicar and that he represented the true and indefectible Roman Catholic Church. . . .

100. Since Paul VI in fact did all those things that a true Vicar of Christ would never do, the conclusion at which one must logically and necessarily arrive is clear: at least at the time he promulgated his Novus Ordo Missae Paul VI was not the bona fide pope and the true Vicar of Christ on earth. As Michael Davies implied (and correctly so) the indefectibility of the Church is incompatible with the promulgation of an invalid Mass by its true Sovereign Pontiff.

101. For had he been the legitimate and infallible voice of the true Church of Jesus Christ while foisting upon Catholics his Novus Ordo Missae, which we have shown is certainly invalid, then this so-called "true Church" would be proved to be a sham, a defectible imposture.

102. Indefectibility does not guarantee that many Catholics, particularly those who are sometimes designated as "nominal Catholics," could not be deceived and be deprived of the graces of the true Holy Sacrifice and the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, the primary sources of grace for their sanctification. Such a deprivation and such spiritual blindness could well be the result of God's punishment for the sinfulness and negligence of many, nay most, of us.

103. Indefectibility allows that terrestrial enemies of Christ and his Church, engulfed in the "smoke of Satan," to use the very words of Paul VI, would some day bring about the fulfillment of that which is foretold in the Holy Scriptures: "And they shall defile the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the continual sacrifice, and they shall place there the abomination unto desolation" (Dan. 11:31); and also: "And from the time when the continual sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination unto desolation shall be set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred ninety days" (Dan. 12:11).

104. In this essay I have advanced two theses, the latter flowing necessarily from the former: [1] Paul VI's Novus Ordo Missae is per se invalid; and [2] its corollary that he was not a bona fide pope -- the true Bishop of Rome and the Patriarch of the West, the Vicar of Christ on earth. In refuting me an Adversarius must first disprove (or attempt to do so) my case that Paul VI's Novus Ordo Missae is invalid. But he cannot argue circularly by building his case on the premise that Paul VI was a true pope, incapable of promulgating an invalid Mass.

[End of quote from Mr. Patrick Omlor]

 

Conclusions

 

[COMING SOON -- all the essentials are above, but, as soon as we are able, we want to draw out a few of the conclusions very explicitly, of which we hope all the readers will take note.]

* * * * * *

I want to again thank Mr. Patrick Omlor for his important research on this subject, to which this paper is heavily indebted. It should not be inferred that Mr. Omlor agrees with any of the observations or analysis in this paper, unless it is specifically attributed to him.

* * * * *

The link to Mr. Patrick Omlor's paper, No "Mystery of Faith": No Mass --- is found here:

http://www.sedevacantist.net/newmass/mystfide.htm

* * * * * *